MailWrangler: Another App rejected for competing with Apple Apps

[Darkroom]

I don't like seeing apps rejected, but Apple does have responcibility to it's shareholders, and any loss of revenue comming from these apps could make the shareholder angry. I know it sucks, but thats business.

the only responsibility apple has is that when they TAKE money from developers who enrole in the iPhone Development Program not to treat them like yesterdays trash when they have done nothing wrong... responsibility to their shareholders? just enrolled in business school have we? give me a break, buddy...

I'd love to have an article appear in the New Yorker magazine, but the fact that I spend x-number of hours writing it does not obligate the publication in any way to publish it.

oh? and when was the last time you payed the New York Times $99/year, followed their guidelines to write your piece, and then was rejected (while much worse articles were published) because of nonsense?

 

[Bubba Satori]

I'd love to have an article appear in the New Yorker magazine, but the fact that I spend x-number of hours writing it does not obligate the publication in any way to publish it.

Bad analogy of the day award.

As long as the App doesn't violate the Terms in the SDK then it should be allowed. I don't understand why a mail app isn't okay but there are calcs and weather apps. What gives?

A herculean example of *nal retentive contol on the part of Cupertino. If Steve Balmer was pulling stunts like this, folks would be besides themselves with uncontrollable laughter. Monkey boy meet anorexic boy.

 

[BikeRanger]

Directly duplicating?

Come to think of it, my Mail app inbox makes a pretty good flashlight.

 

[Niiro13]

Well... the problem with this is that Apple does impose kind of a monopoly on what's supposed to be an expandable (by software) platform. Sure, they don't have a monopoly in the whole smartphone market - but from a customer perspective it is pretty similar: Apple is selling a hardware platform and they are distributing 3rd party work while limiting the customers' choice. Of course that's perfectly legal as long as there is no legal monopoly involved. Still, it's not good for the customers who have bought iPhones - which makes it a perfectly valid topic to discuss, IMO.

But you do have to realize that Apple didn't even "plan on" having third party applications in the beginning (I put that in quotes cause I still believe they planned to have it all along...otherwise, why the three axis accelerometer and not just one?). Imagine if that were still true. No need to worry about rejections from flatulence applications and stuff. Heck, Apple could reject an app simply because "I don't like your name". The fact is, the iPhone didn't have third party applications when it first came out. Giving it to us is already good enough. Of course discussion is perfectly valid. But we still should realize how good it is to even have an App Store.

 

[oticon6]

For all we know, this app was rejected because he didn't clarify why Mail doesn't suffice. Just because he said it to us, doesn't mean it was clear to Apple. You guys are too quick to grumble

Remember that most apps get rejected at least once. Rejected doesn't mean "will never be accepted", it means that in its current state, it won't happen.

With the App Store growing so quickly, Apple NEEDS to be strict when it comes to stuff like this. I want to browse useful apps when I go to the store, and if there's going to be 10,000 that appeal to a minority (I have two gmail accounts.. so yeah, this does include me) then the majority of people are going to get annoyed at the crap they have to sift through.

Apple's stubborn nature is part of the reason their stuff isn't junk and Leopard isn't just another Windows. If they haven't decided on the best way to do something, they won't do it until they work it out. It sucks sometimes, but so does the open mobile app idea. I've found way more useful stuff and much less junk for my iPhone than I ever did for a PDA. If allowed to roam free, people try to charge stupid prices for stupid apps.

Fine, complain about this app being rejected if you think it's useful, but stop this crap about "OMG APPLE YOU ARE THE NEW MS!!!! **** YOU OMGOMG OMG"

 

[jaduffy108]

funny, seems like everyone is watching the Emmys

seriously, this actually makes me think that apple IS becoming the new microsoft

unfortunately, I have to agree. Pretty sad. Android will benefit tremendously and make Apple pay a price. Apple deserves it.

 

[dieburnbot]

They have to make room for all those extremely useful DaysTo apps which are multiplying every day.

 

[sibruk]

I don't like seeing apps rejected, but Apple does have responcibility to it's shareholders, and any loss of revenue comming from these apps could make the shareholder angry. I know it sucks, but thats business.

Huh? Did you say loss of revenue?! Let's see... $99 for every developer that signs up to the programme (which they get regardless of whether the developer makes any apps that get approved!). And a cut of the sale of every app sold. There appears to be no logic in your argument.

 

[Abstract]

Apple NEED to release some clear guidelines!!!!

There ARE guidelines. Apple tells you what you cannot do, and people make apps which follow these rules.

From there, the decision to buy or reject an app should be decided by the market, who should also be allowed to comment and rate the application.


This is just Apple being ****heads (again).

 

[michaellinehan]

Its a shame Apple treat their user base as a load of 2 year olds instead of adults.

It's a shame there are so many on here who react like 2-year-olds. Well.... maybe 14-year-olds, self-absorbed, petulant ones, at that.

If you open a clothing store that features both big and small designers, are you under any obligation to take on EVERY designer who submits a shirt to your store? If you open a tool store, are you obliged to stock every tool from everyone? Why should it be any different here?

I think Apple has every right to decide what goes in their store and what doesn't. Fair enough on the remark that it would be nice if they provided clearer guidelines for potential developers.

 

[sgibson]

Maybe I'm not understanding something, but it sure seems to me that Apple is in the right here - it's directly duplicating one facet of the mail app. The author says this:

"This is an interesting claim since although handing email, my app is simply directly loading and showing Gmail inside of an application. How you can confuse Gmail with Mail.app I’m not sure."

How about the fact that the mail app can load and show Gmail? So maybe he handles the setup a slightly different way, I agree with Apple that that's not very different at all. Apple is most likely assuming that if an app comes out that does GMail, potential iPhone owners will think the built-in apps don't support GMail (otherwise why would someone make a GMail app and sell it?), and that they have to pay extra to add that feature.

I was actually surprised it was rejected for duplicating Mail and not Safari.

"my app is simply directly loading and showing Gmail inside of an application."

By that it sounds like all the app does is displays gmail in a Safari control and adds on some password remembering.

It was also rejected for being incomplete - the only way to get access to a gmail account if you changed the password was to delete the account information in the app and start again from scratch.

I don't agree with some of Apple's decisions (I know the guys that made Murderdrome) but in this case it sounds like the app really didn't do anything that couldn't be done in Mail or Safari already AND wasn't in a finished state.

 

[tom.]

This is rediculous, the app should have been allowed through. There are so many rubbish apps on that store, they need to straighten out the policies so good apps don't suffer.

It isn't fair on the developers. They need some way of checking if the app will be allowed through from a design pitch. The SDK EULA and 'guidelines' aren't enough.

You can't argue from the few lines given that either side is right or wong, the fact is none of us have seen the app. What we have seen is the amount of unfinished and duplicate apps on the store, which automatically makes almost any denial of further apps unfair. Apple have taken a crap on their own doorstep by letting the rubbish apps through in the first place.

 

[happydude]

Sounds like what happened to Podcaster... (http://almerica.blogspot.com)

Apple, let the consumer decide what they want. Not you. Please?

+1, 1000%

 

[Bevz]

Apple really need to give developers the opportunity to ask if their apps are likely to be approved upfront. Because this will just end up p!ssing off developers who will vow to "never code for the iPhone again" after wasting weeks and weeks of development time.

I couldn't agree more, I was just about to post the same comment.

Also, again there is no consistency here, there are tons of apps on the app store that "duplicate" the functionality of built in apps... Loads of calculators, notes apps to just name a few... Apple have let them in... Why mail app? Very odd... Again, apple is making subjective decisions on app acceptance... This is a very dodgy road to go down and may ultimately result in a lot of devs refusing to write for the iPhone

 

[Lictor]

It sucks that they blocked this app (I for one would have bought it!) but from my (limited) understanding of the law it would be tough to argue against Apple. The big sticking point with Microsoft was that it was the de facto operating system for the vast majority of the world's computers, and strangling development on specific windows software pretty much cut your options out at the knees.

Apple owns 90% of the market of mp3 players... That's even worse than Microsoft on the OS front and a lot worse than Microsoft on the web browsers front. Likewise, the iPhone as a mobile web browser is already very high and it will be above 50% market shares this year.
The iPhone is not merely a phone, it's also a mp3 player and a mobile web browser. The iPod Touch is not even a phone, and it's targetted by the App Store as well.

With Android, windows mobile, Blackberry, the possible future palm OS and even the increasingly standardized java environment on feature phones, there's more options than JUST the iPhone to develop for.

Android doesn't even exist yet. And the iPhone market share is raising quickly now.
I wonder if an artist could complain if Apple refused to sell his music on iTunes...

 

[TheOrioles33]

They have to make room for all those extremely useful DaysTo apps which are multiplying every day.

Are those effin ridiculous our what?!! I am waiting for a DaysUntilTomorrow app to show up.

 

[AppliedMicro]

But you do have to realize that Apple didn't even "plan on" having third party applications in the beginning (I put that in quotes cause I still believe they planned to have it all along...otherwise, why the three axis accelerometer and not just one?).

Of course they had planned allowing 3rd-party apps in some form or another. Every other smartphone with even half the iPhone's capabilities allows for 3rd-party appes.

Giving it to us is already good enough.

Maybe it is, maybe not. I am rather not content with that, from a customer perspective. Because they are actively hindering people who want to install 3rd-apps from sources other than the app store. Which just plain sucks in some cases. I mean... what other UMTS smartphone comes without tethering ability? If this were an open, customer-friendly platform, one would be at least free to install the apps one wants, instead of the ones Apple graciously allows. You could choose to pay a certain premium for "certified by apple" apps from the app store, for the more convenient way of buying (as a customer) and letting Apple do the billing and handling (as a developer) but could still install apps freely. "Closed" systems like the iPhone aren't something I'd welcome as a customer.

 

[sibruk]

I wonder if an artist could complain if Apple refused to sell his music on iTunes...

That's quite an interesting thought. The truth is Apple are happy to sell you pretty much any piece of music, so long as you're paying 99¢. It's very strange that they're not doing the same with apps. Sure, they have terms of the SDK to adhere to (and apps should of course not be inserted if they violate this) but I think this whole "by discretion of the management" approach stinks.

 

[foobarbaz]

I wish everybody would just relax a little...

First of all, this isn't "Apple" rejecting the app. It's some guy (probably the same one) working at Apple. We don't know if it's actually company policy.

So, what do you do when you're dealing with an idiot? You talk to the supervisor. This might be difficult in this situation, but until one of the developers has done that, we shouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[Anuba]

seriously, this actually makes me think that apple IS becoming the new microsoft

Now now... what on Earth did Microsoft do to be compared with Apple in this regard?

Come on. They bundled a web browser with Windows and got shot down by every court around the world. To this day they're still not allowed to bundle IE or WMP with Windows in some regions.

Meanwhile Apple has been doing the exact same thing, bundling a web browser and a media player with their OS, but they don't stop there -- they also bundle the iLife suite.

MS doesn't make computers, they just make an OS that will install on pretty much anything, including Macs. Apple on the other hand makes computers and an operating system, and they will hunt down and destroy anyone who tries to sell a Mac clone or make their OS run on a PC.

MS doesn't make phones, they just make a phone OS that any ol' manufacturer can license if they want. They let manufacturers modify the OS and they don't consider it their business if anyone wants to install third party apps, or how people sync their phones with the computer. Apple on the other hand makes phones that run a proprietary OS, and the only way to get an app onto it (legally) is to buy it from their store, a store which rejects apps that even vaguely duplicate functionality of Apple's own apps. And the only way to sync the phone with the computer is to use Apple's iTunes, which is linked to their app store, their music store, their video store etc.

MS makes a media player (WMP) that will sync up to any ol' portable player or Flash dongle, and if you want to buy music through it you can link it up to a number of different online stores. iTunes, on the other hand, will only sync with Apple's portable players and will only allow you to buy media files directly from iTunes Store.

MS makes a portable player (Zune) that lets you drop files onto it from any media player software or simply an Explorer window. iPod on the other hand will only play media files if they are transfered from iTunes.

MS has never ventured into the professional music software market. Apple on the other hand decided to buy one of the main players (Emagic, the makers of Logic) and turn their flagship product into an Apple product, while discontinuing the Windows version of Logic. Then they dropped the price to mere pennies, in an obvious attempt to push Steinberg, Ableton, Propellerhead and all the others off the market.

MS has never ventured into the professional video software market. Apple on the other hand decided to stab Adobe in the face by releasing Final Cut and Motion. Adobe responded by discontinuing Premiere and After Effects for the Mac platform.

So, no, Apple is hardly "the new Microsoft". To call Apple "the new Microsoft" is kind of like calling Ted Bundy a wife beater -- it just doesn't even begin to cover it. Apple only compares to Apple when it comes to blatant monopolization efforts. But somehow they get away with it by playing the "maverick" card.

 

[BenRoethig]

"...which will lead to user confusion."

LOL...are iPhone owners retarded or does Apple just assume they are?

No, but they feel that they should or can make make decisions for those users. It works with Traditional Mac users and users who, for the most part, are used to this level of control. Not so much with the iPhone crowd.

 

[megfilmworks]

I don't see this as a big issue.

Unfortunate for the developer, but understandable.

Apple is tightly controlling the iPhone and apps at this time. I would expect to see this change down the road after many issues and functions such as cut & paste are worked out first.

I agree, it seems to be a problem for devs who lack imagination and basic common sense. Business equals risk.

 

[BenRoethig]

I agree, it seems to be a problem for devs who lack imagination and basic common sense. Business equals risk.

If Apple keeps it up a lot of developers are going to lack imagination and common sense.

 

[Darkroom]

If Apple keeps it up a lot of developers are going to lack imagination and common sense.

you know, every time i read about apple rejecting an app, their 1984 ad always flashes in my head...

one word: android... i can see lots of developers flipping the finger to apple and heading over to google over this bs... they need to straighten this out...

another word: jailbreak... if developers paid apple x-amount of money for their device, and x-amount of money to develop for the device in x-amount of time, only to have them fall at the last stretch? this type of censorship and control only encourages people to jailbreak their phones and ipods...

 

[Rybold]

Another day, another App rejected.

The more Apps that Apple rejects, the less confident many talented developers are going to become about whether Apple will even approve the Apps that are currently being developed, and they might stop bothering to make Apps in the first place. iPhone users will lose out. Users of other software-based phones and computers will benefit. I'm not sure if Apple relizes that with every App rejected, they are also rejecting software developers. These developers and other developers that read this news will start developing software for Apple's competitors, such as Google's Android phones.